The nature and character of possession need not be proved if it is undisputed, and an unregistered lease deed cannot be admitted as evidence if the terms are vital and not for collateral purpose.

1. The respondents herein filed RCOP No.1068 of 2009 against the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition for eviction under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (As amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980).

2. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is a tenant under them. The petitioner, by filing a counter, contested the Eviction Petition inter-alia contending as follows:-

In consideration of the financial assistance extended by the respondents father Mr. K.Jaffar Hussain, the predecessors interest of the respondents, permitted the petitioners father to carry on the business in 1/3rd portion of the petition premises i.e., the entire ground floor for a period of 99 years. The intention of the petitioners father in giving lease of the ground floor for 99 years was in effect to transfer the ownership of the ground floor to the respondents father. The said mutual agreement was reduced into writing by an agreement, dated 07.01.1955. By virtue of the above agreement, the respondents father is entitled to have the use of the entire ground floor till 2054. It was the further case of the respondents that the petitioners father was using the premises without paying any rent.

3. The RCOP was taken up for enquiry and number of documents were filed by the respective parties. The petitioner herein wanted to mark the lease deed, dated 07.01.1955, as an exhibit in the RCOP, but the respondents objected to the marking of the lease deed as an exhibit on the ground that since the petitioner is contending that the lease deed has been executed for 99 years, the same cannot be marked as an exhibit, unless the said lease deed is properly stamped and registered.

4. The learned Rent Controller has held that the lease deed, dated 07.01.1955, cannot be marked as an exhibit. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner / tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Controller ought to have allowed the marking of the lease deed, to prove the nature and character of possession of the petitioner of the petition property. He further submitted that even if the lease agreement is unregistered, it can be looked into for collateral purpose, namely, to ascertain the nature and character of possession of the petitioner. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel based reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in 2009 (5) CTC 822 (P.Narayanan v. Kasi) and 2010 (1) CTC 27 (Kalaivani @ Devasena v. J.Ramu).

7. In both the said decisions, the learned Judge of this Court has held that though the document is un-registered and un-stamped, it can be looked into for collateral purpose, provided the deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid up to date. Learned counsel for the petitioner also based reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 530 (THIRUVENGADAM PILLAI V. NAVANEETHAMMAL). In the said decision, in paragraph 13, it has been laid down as follows:-

"13. The Stamp Act is a fiscal enactment intended to secure revenue for the State. In the absence of any rule requiring consecutively numbered stamp papers purchased on the same day, being used for an instrument which is not intended to be registered, a document cannot be termed as invalid merely because it is written on two stamp papers purchased by the same person on different dates. Even assuming that use of such stamp papers is an irregularity, the court can only deem the document to be not properly stamped, but cannot, only on that ground, hold that the document to be invalid. Even if an agreement is not executed on requisite stamp paper, it is admissible in evidence on payment of duty and penalty under Sections 35 or 37 of the Stamp Act, 1899. If an agreement executed on a plain paper could be admitted in evidence by paying duty and penalty, there